<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (9) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69095</link>
    <description>The case involved determining Long Term Capital Gains for the assessment year 1994-95, focusing on the valuation of jewellery and application of section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to use the market value of the jewellery as of 1-4-1981 after indexation for calculating capital gains, emphasizing the property&#039;s unencumbered status at the time of sale. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant&#039;s interpretation of section 49, highlighting the need to consider the cost of the previous owner for accurate capital gains calculation. The appeal was successful for the assessee due to discrepancies in valuation methods for wealth-tax and Capital Gains purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 11:42:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69095</link>
      <description>The case involved determining Long Term Capital Gains for the assessment year 1994-95, focusing on the valuation of jewellery and application of section 49 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to use the market value of the jewellery as of 1-4-1981 after indexation for calculating capital gains, emphasizing the property&#039;s unencumbered status at the time of sale. Additionally, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant&#039;s interpretation of section 49, highlighting the need to consider the cost of the previous owner for accurate capital gains calculation. The appeal was successful for the assessee due to discrepancies in valuation methods for wealth-tax and Capital Gains purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>